Lenin’s abstract, which lasted two and a half hours, was divided into two parts. In the first part, Lenin outlined the historical conditions that could—and indeed should—have given rise to such a “miracle” as the collapse of the tsarist monarchy within just eight days. Chief among these conditions was the “Great Uprising” of 1905–1907, so vilified by today’s ruling class, the Guchkovs and Miliukovs, who now extol the “glorious revolution” of 1917. Yet if the profound revolution of 1905 had not “torn up the soil,” had not laid bare the various classes and parties in action, had not exposed the tsarist clique in all its savagery and brutality, then the swift victory of 1917 would never have been possible.

It was an utterly exceptional combination of circumstances that enabled the forces arrayed against tsarism in 1917 to converge under the banner of a single, unified struggle—though these forces were themselves highly diverse. First, Anglo-French financial capital, which at that time dominated the entire world and plundered it without restraint, had opposed the revolution in 1905 and aided the tsarist regime in crushing it (as evidenced by the 1906 loan). Now, however, it took direct, active part in the revolution itself, orchestrating the open conspiracy of Messrs. Guchkov, Miliukov, and certain senior officers of the army to depose Nicholas II or compel him to make concessions. From the standpoint of global politics and world finance, the Guchkov–Miliukov government was nothing more than the agents of the banking firm “England and France”—the instruments through which the imperialist slaughter of peoples was to be continued. Second, the defeats suffered by the tsarist monarchy had swept away the old officer corps of the army and replaced it with a new, young, bourgeois leadership. Third, the entire Russian bourgeoisie—having intensified its organizational efforts from 1905 to 1914, and even more rapidly from 1914 to 1917—had united with the landed gentry in their struggle against the decaying tsarist monarchy, seeking to enrich themselves through the plunder of Armenia, Constantinople, Galicia, and other territories. Fourth, alongside these imperialist forces emerged a deep and powerful proletarian movement. The proletariat carried out the revolution, demanding peace, bread, and freedom—having nothing in common with the imperialist bourgeoisie—and it drew behind it the vast majority of the army, composed of workers and peasants. Thus began the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war.

From this arose the fundamental contradiction of this revolution—a contradiction that renders it no more than the first stage of the first revolution born of war. The Guchkov–Miliukov, landlord, and capitalist government could offer the people neither peace, nor bread, nor freedom. It was a government committed to the continuation of predatory warfare, openly declaring that it remained faithful to the tsarist regime’s international treaties—treaties that were, in every respect, predatory in nature. At best, this government might delay the onset of crisis, but it could never deliver the country from famine. Nor could it grant freedom, no matter how many “promises” it made—promises are cheap—but rather because it was bound by the interests of landed property and capital; from the very outset, it entered into secret negotiations with the dynasty in order to restore the monarchy.

All the more foolish, therefore, is the tactic of “supporting” the new government in the name of some supposed “struggle against reaction.” For such a struggle, the proletariat must be armed—the only serious, real guarantee both against the tsarist regime and against the Guchkovs and Miliukovs’ attempt to restore the monarchy.

Thus was the deputy Skobelev correct when he declared that Russia stood “on the eve of a second, truly (wirklich) revolutionary upheaval.”

And the popular organization for this revolution already exists—and is growing. It is the Council of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, which is not without reason reviled by the agents of Anglo-French capital, by the correspondents of the Times and Le Temps.

Studying the reports on the Council of Workers’ Deputies appearing in the newspapers, Lenin concluded that three distinct currents existed within it. The first was closest to the social-patriots. It placed its trust in Kerensky—the hero of empty rhetoric, a pawn in the hands of Guchkov and Miliukov, the worst representative of “Loubiankism”{41}, who fed workers with hollow promises, uttered ringing phrases in the spirit of European social-patriots and social-pacifists à la Kautsky and Co., while in reality “reconciling” workers with the continuation of predatory warfare. Through Kerensky’s mouth, the imperialist bourgeoisie of Russia told the workers: “We will give you a republic, an eight-hour workday (already introduced in Petrograd), we promise you freedom—all in order that you may help us plunder Turkey, Austria, seize the spoils of German imperialism, and secure the gains of Anglo-French imperialism.”

The second current was that of the Central Committee of our Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. The newspapers published an excerpt (Auszug) from the Manifesto of our Central Committee. The Manifesto was issued in St. Petersburg on March 18. It proclaimed the demands for a democratic republic, an eight-hour workday, the confiscation of landed estates in favor of the peasantry, the requisition of grain reserves, and the immediate commencement of peace negotiations—not by the Guchkov–Miliukov government, but by the Council of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. For the Manifesto, this Council was the true revolutionary government. (Lenin added that even the correspondent of the Times spoke of two governments in Russia.) Peace negotiations should be conducted not with bourgeois governments, but with the proletarians of all warring nations. The Manifesto called upon all workers, peasants, and soldiers to elect delegates to the Council of Workers’ Deputies.

This was the only truly socialist, truly revolutionary tactic.

The third faction comprises Chkheidze and his allies. Their wavering stance is clearly reflected in the reviews published in The Times and Le Temps—sometimes praising Chkheidze, sometimes denouncing him. When Chkheidze refused to join the Second Provisional Government, when he declared war on imperialism from both sides, and so forth, he was pursuing a proletarian policy. Yet when Chkheidze entered the First Provisional Government (“the Duma Committee”), when, in Paragraph 3 of his proclamation, he called for “ausreichende Teilnahme der Vertreter der russischen Arbeiterschaft an der Regierung” (the participation of internationalists in a government engaged in imperialist war!!), when he—and Skobelev—urged this very imperialist government to initiate peace negotiations (instead of explaining to the workers the truth that the bourgeoisie is bound hand and foot by the interests of financial capital, which cannot escape imperialism), when Chkheidze’s friends Tulyakov and Skobelev, acting on behalf of the Guchkov–Milyukov government, went about “pacifying” soldiers who were rising up against the liberal generals (the assassination of Admiral Nepenin—a tragedy mourned even by German imperialists!!)—at such moments, Chkheidze and his allies sank into the worst kind of “Loubetism,” pursuing a bourgeois policy and undermining the cause of the revolution.

Lenin also attacked Gorky’s social-pacifist proclamation, expressing regret that the great artist had ventured into politics, repeating the prejudices of the petty bourgeoisie.

In the second part of his work, Lenin set himself the task of elucidating what the proletariat’s tactics ought to be. He outlined the distinctive character of the historical situation at that particular moment—the transition from the first stage of the revolution to the second, from uprising against tsarism to uprising against the bourgeoisie, against imperialist war, or toward the Convention that the Constituent Assembly might become if the government fulfilled its “promise” to convene it.

The specific task of the moment, corresponding to this transitional phase, is the organization of the proletariat—but not a formulaic organization, content with the sort of arrangements favored by traitors to socialism, social-patriots and opportunists of every country, as well as by the Kautskyites; rather, it must be a revolutionary organization. Such an organization must, first, be genuinely popular; second, it must combine military and state functions.

The opportunists who dominated the Second International had distorted Marx and Engels’ theory of the state during the revolutionary period. Even in his polemic with Pannenkuck (1912), Kautsky had abandoned Marx’s standpoint{42}. Marx had taught, drawing on the experience of the Paris Commune of 1871, that the working class “cannot simply seize the ready-made state machinery and put it into motion for its own purposes.” The proletariat must (must?) break down this machinery—army, police, bureaucracy{43}. This is precisely what the opportunists (social patriots) and Kautskyites (social pacifists) either denied or sought to conceal. This is the most important practical lesson of the Paris Commune and of the Russian Revolution of 1905.

We differ from the anarchists in that we recognize the necessity of the state for revolutionary upheaval. But we also differ from the opportunists and Kautskyites in that we insist: we do not need the “ready-made” state apparatus as it exists in the most democratic of bourgeois republics; instead, we require the immediate power of armed, organized workers. That is the state we need. In essence, these are the Commune of 1871, and the Workers’ Deputies’ Councils of 1905 and 1917. On this foundation, we must continue to build[9]. Let us prevent the restoration of the police! Let us create, from the people’s militia, a truly popular militia—led by the proletariat, our “own state”—so that capitalists may pay workers for the days they devote to service in the militia. Let us supplement the “miracles of proletarian heroism” that the proletariat displayed yesterday in its struggle against tsarism and will display tomorrow in its struggle against the Guchkov–Milyukov clique with “miracles of proletarian organization.” This is the slogan of the moment! This is the key to success!

Objective conditions are driving workers onto this path: hunger, the imperative to distribute bread, the inevitability of “Zivildienstpflicht”[10], the urgent need to secure peace. As Lenin explained, our terms for peace should be as follows: 1) The Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, as a revolutionary government, would immediately declare that it is bound by no treaties—neither with the tsarist regime nor with the bourgeoisie; 2) it would promptly publish those vile, predatory treaties; 3) it would openly offer all warring parties an immediate armistice; 4) it would propose peace on the condition of liberating all colonies and all peoples deprived of full rights; 5) it would declare that it does not trust bourgeois governments and call upon workers in every country to overthrow them; 6) it would assert that the debts incurred for the war were contracted by the bourgeoisie—and let the capitalists bear the burden of repaying them.

Such a policy would win over the majority of workers, as well as the poorest peasants, to the side of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. The confiscation of landed estates would be assured. This would not yet be socialism; it would be a victory for workers and the poorest peasants, securing peace, freedom, and bread. For such terms of peace, we are prepared to wage a revolutionary war! Lenin reminded his audience that in Social-Demokrat No. 47 (dated October 13, 1915), it had already been stated that social democracy did not rule out a revolutionary war of this kind[11]. The solidarity of the socialist proletariat of all countries would be guaranteed. The base appeals of social patriots—such as the infamous letter from Geda, “First victory, then the republic”—would dissipate like smoke.

“Long live the Russian Revolution!” concluded the rapporteur. “Long live the worldwide workers’ revolution that has now begun!”

Written on March 16 or 17 (March 29 or 30), 1917.

Printed on March 31 and April 2, 1917, in the newspaper “Volksrecht,” Nos. 77 and 78.

First published in Russian in 1929 in the journal “Proletarian Revolution,” No. 10.

Printed from the manuscript.